I both agree and disagree with you on this. In terms of holding our elected officials accountable to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today is so very right, yet never done. Which gets back to my point of the founding fathers. They were not perfect and all had their own flaws. However there are multiple examples of each of them doing the right thing instead of doing the easy thing or the thing that would preserve their wealth, power, status, and their life.I find it funny that we as a country care what the founding father's think about anything today. There are lots of discussions that start with that line. The idea that men 200+ years ago would be able to envision a country in 200 years is stupid. They couldn't, and they didn't. The documents they signed are not infallible, nor is our constitution or any other document. The courts have made whatever the founding father's thought pointless anyways, they have just interpreted those documents for today's time.
I think we go back to the Founding Father's because we seem to remember them as respectable and wise. Instead, we should be forcing our currently elected officials to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today. I get we have legal documents that force us to follow certain rules and laws. But we also have chambers of government that are elected to change those rules and laws, and where necessary amend our constitution to cover the current world we live in. Instead we take these old documents and these old men and try and pretend that they knew about the internet and 3D printed guns and would have had thoughts on them....
But what are those 'wise and respectable choices' that you talk about today? I think as a culture, it be come more difficult to understand what those are based on a persons foundation beliefs on what the role of the government is and what it isn't. Is the government in place to protect us from ourselves and be our babysitter, or is it the watch dog that protects us from outside forces that desire to do us harm. As you know, I will side closer to the 10th Amendment on this one. And while their is not a definitive consensus today, it was the same 200 years ago and there were many things within the Constitution that are based on compromise. They were willing to forego party politics to create documents that would get ratified by the colonies.
I think that in some areas we are wiser today then citizens 200 years ago, but all too often we get wrapped up in heavy handed approaches to real issues that need to be solved instead of elegant ones that would preserve the intent of these founding documents, protecting the rights of the many, while addressing the issues at hand. Trump's wall is a great example of this. Instead of focusing on ways to improve the immigration process and allow for people to come to the US in a legal and orderly way, he wants to build a wall to keep everyone out. Some gun bills are the same way. The intent is well meaning but the result does nothing to solve the issue and prevent further violence.
Call me stupid if you will, because I believe that many of the founding fathers attempted to envision foundation and fundamental rights that would extend well over 200 years into the future, and I say this because there is evidence that they, especially Franklin and Jefferson, looked as far back as 3,000 years to establish something that had the potential to stand the test of time and that would be adaptable to changing needs. I also think that they did envision potential future issues and even provided an instruction manual in the event that things with the Government got too far out of hand. The Declaration of Independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Furthermore, Article 5 of the Constitution outlined how to get amendments approved.
Finally, you mentioned the internet and 3D printed guns. You are correct, they did not take these into consideration, nor do I think they needed to. I think that many places have laws against the production of a firearm that is not detectable by xray or metal detector. We don't need a constitutional amendment for that... we just need a way to enforce it.